John, the Founders screwed up. They never said America was only for White people. My personal opinion is that that was infact their intention, they didn't foresee modern "America". There are just two problems: 1) It is not in writing. The Founders never said America was only for Whites. They must not have ever meant for it either, they did permit negroes to live here afterall. 2) You cannot change the minds and identities of 330+ million people.

America has never shared a common identity. There was this event, it was called the Civil War. Try telling Robert E. Lee he has the same values as a Yankee. Whether you like your country's history or not you cannot change the fact that the only reason it is "United" today is because half the population decided it didn't give a damn about your beloved Constitution in 1860. Alot of it didn't care much for Vietnam. Does a good ole' Southern boy have much in common with the elitist Abercrombie and Fitch kids in upstate New York or Massachusetts? How about with the dirtbike riding bottle blonde crazy Californian suburban youth? In short, NO.

Lastly, you are entitled to your personal view about hyphenation even if it is wrong. It exists. You can't change it. But by not identifying yourself you imply that you are some bland version of whatever your idea of American is. You indirectly equate yourself as being in some way or another the same as the negroes that have lived here for the last 450 years or so. If you are American and Leroy from the Tuskeegee Airmen is also American then what does that say? Are you going to say thata black man who fought in a war for your Liberty is somehow less American than you? If so, then what nationality is he? In short, "American" means very, very little. If it has no accepted definition other than someone who lives here in the United States then you cannot make an outlandish claim that it means being White and believing in Freedom. There are simply no Constitutional grounds for that.

Lastly, I know what Natural Law is. I know enough about St. Tomas Aquinas and the Jesuits to know that they'd be displeased with the generic label of American. They support maintaining biodiversity through compliance and understanding of Nature's Laws. Saying that you belong to a non-unified group of people with a generic label is kind of counterproductive to their overall goals of maintaining Natural Law. Your kind won't continue on and thrive when your kind has no clue about it's real roots and people. Don't tell me to "pick which side of Nature to be on" when you yourself are being played for the fool.

exactly right!

America is not...and i dont think has ever been....the land of milk and honey for whites like we want to believe.

It was founded by people trying to escape their herritage, and by people who were looking to make money...to avoid the european aristocracy.

Today, American means nothing more than "I live in the USA"

We use the hyphen to describe ourselves because America is not a homogenous society...and people realize that their herritage is more important than their location. Today...America is a place where we can try and fulfill our wildest hedonistic dreams. And we cant change that.

Whites have no more right of saying this should be a "white" nation....as some black guy has saying this should be a "african" nation.

White people belong in Europe. Its where we started...its where are history is...its where our culture is....and it is where our WN society should be. End of story.

John, the Founders screwed up. They never said America was only for White people. My personal opinion is that that was infact their intention, they didn't foresee modern "America". There are just two problems: 1) It is not in writing. The Founders never said America was only for Whites. They must not have ever meant for it either, they did permit negroes to live here afterall. 2) You cannot change the minds and identities of 330+ million people.

The original U.S. naturalization law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) provided the first rules to be followed by all of the United States in the granting of national citizenship. At that time and by that law naturalization was limited to aliens who were "free white persons" and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, and most women, all of whom were considered dependents and thus incapable of casting an independent vote. The 1790 Act also limited naturalization to persons of "good moral character." And the law required a set period of residence in the United States prior to naturalization, specifically two years in the country and one year in the state of residence when applying for citizenship.

Negroes were not considered human in that era. If you read the US Constitution, you'll see that Negroes counted as "3/5ths of a person" for the purpose of assigning Representatives. This was insisted on by the Southern states, not the Northern, because they knew most of the (White) population was up North, hence they could be out-voted unless the numbers of Negroes were included in some fashion.

What makes you think you can't change the minds and identity of 330+ million people? Every one of the non-White immigrants came here, we waved our magic wand, and *poof* they have their minds and identity changed, superficially at least.

We waved the wand once, we can do it again.

Quote:

America has never shared a common identity. There was this event, it was called the Civil War. Try telling Robert E. Lee he has the same values as a Yankee. Whether you like your country's history or not you cannot change the fact that the only reason it is "United" today is because half the population decided it didn't give a damn about your beloved Constitution in 1860. Alot of it didn't care much for Vietnam. Does a good ole' Southern boy have much in common with the elitist Abercrombie and Fitch kids in upstate New York or Massachusetts? How about with the dirtbike riding bottle blonde crazy Californian suburban youth? In short, NO.

I'll grant you some exceptions--the Yankees in the civil War fought for what we know of as "modern America." That is, they fought for the idea of equality; in particular the equality of the Negro.

The same filth who agitated against Vietnam did so in order to create chaos in the US--and these were led by the jews, no doubt about that.

The other examples you mention are the symptoms of an unhealthy people, not causes; we can correct this.

Quote:

Lastly, you are entitled to your personal view about hyphenation even if it is wrong. It exists. You can't change it.

Who the hell are you to say I can't change it? 50 years ago, no one ever heard of a hyphenated American. John Wayne wrote about the hyphenated American...if it was changed once, it can be changed again.

Quote:

But not identifying yourself you imply that you are some bland version of whatever your idea of American is. You indirectly equate yourself as being in some way or another the same as the negroes that have lived here for the last 450 years or so. If you are American and Leroy from the Tuskeegee Airmen is also American then what does that say? Are you going to say thata black man who fought in a war for your Liberty is somehow less American than you? If so, then what nationality is he?

Listen up: Just because others say Negroes are "American" doesn't make it so. Are you White? Did you choose to live here in America, as an American? Then dammit set some standards for the term! Do *you* accept that Negroes can be "American"? If so, then it is YOU who cheapen the term! Get the back to Switzerland or wherever you came from! But don't be telling me--and other Americans--that we are "bland!"

Quote:

In short, "American" means very, very little. If it has no accepted definition other than someone who lives here in the United States then you cannot make an outlandish claim that it means being White and believing in Freedom. There are simply no Constitutional grounds for that.

Read the 1790 immigration law again...and don't tell a born-here American that his claims are "outlandish."

Quote:

Lastly, I know what Natural Law is. I know enough about St. Tomas Aquinas and the Jesuits to know that they'd be displeased with the generic label of American. They support maintaining biodiversity through compliance and understanding of Nature's Laws. Saying that you belong to a non-unified group of people with a generic label is kind of counterproductive to their overall goals of maintaining Natural Law. Your kind won't continue on and thrive when your kind has no clue about it's real roots and people. Don't tell me to "pick which side of Nature to be on" when you yourself are being played for the fool.

Granted, we do have a condition "no clue about our roots"...this is a deliberate effort made by schools, media, and politicians. Hate Whitey, "dead White men", and all that.

We are in the process of correcting this...but the effort must start with being aware that Race exists, and that there are consequences for denying it. It'll be a long road for us.

BTW, I will tell you to pick a side--if you don't, a side will be picked for you.

This is an interesting debate. I like this thread so far. Unfortunately, it is rapidly following the course of many other interesting threads--two or more intelligent, but strongly opposed viewpoints, are clashing; and instead of the results leading to a higher understanding of the subject at hand, what the "audience" (Stormfront forum members and non-members) will likely be left with is a "dead thread" (both/all sides running off in opposite directions, never to post again on this thread).

Let's agree that it's O.K. to disagree! Some of my favorite threads are short-lived because of short-fused individuals on both sides of a given argument. Is it time for an official or unofficial Stormfront Guide to the Politics of Argument, or some such tome?

Can't do that when you read his initial post. Might as well close the thread because after he set that pace, there's no going back. Once the can o' worms has been opened, its tough to put them back in.

I felt a little guilty about your answer-post to John A. being deleted. I may have unintentionally precipitated that by posting my opinion that "Let's agree that it's O.K. to disagree," etc. (see whitehorizon post). The moderator saw my post and decided to cool things off between you and John A., thus deleting your last post (I'm sure he'll do the same with John A., if he uses heated language).

In retrospect, I guess I should have waited for you to reply to John A. before offering my opinion on Stormfront members getting along better. Sorry! My intentions were good; my timing was not so good. I went back over the entire thread in attempt to see "who started it" (the fighting, that is). I guess it began here: John A.: "Me and mine will survive eternally; others will perish. Think about which side of Nature you wish to be on." Schweizer Krieger: "Your kind won't continue on and thrive when your kind has no clue about it's real roots and people. Don't tell me to "pick which side of Nature to be on" when you yourself are being played for the fool."John A.: "Who the hell are you to say I can't change it?" ; "Get the back to Switzerland or wherever you came from! But don't be telling me--and other Americans--that we are 'bland!'" ; "BTW, I will tell you to pick a side--if you don't, a side will be picked for you."

O.K., I guess John A. got more digs in, thus obliging you to fire back a volley. The moderator's dilemma is when to stop the personal attacks. I guess both you and John A. would've reached an attack-crescendo at some point, and left this thread anyway. Still, I apologize for "stealing your thunder" --it wasn't intentional.

Concluding thoughts:
What bothers me about all of this is that both John A. and Schweizer Krieger are intelligent White activists. They both have sharply different views on certain topics which has led to the personal attacks that I see so many threads (often the best, most intelligent threads) devolve into. Maybe John A. and Schweizer Krieger wont be contributing to this thread anymore. Also, perhaps I shouldn't attempt to be an armchair-moderator anymore! What I'd like to see is John A. and Schweizer Krieger continue the debate in a new, more civil manner. Let's remind ourselves of the big picture from time to time--we're all (racially-conscious Whites) in this struggle together. "Can't we all just get along?" I couldn't resist that quote.

What bothers me about all of this is that both John A. and Schweizer Krieger are intelligent White activists. They both have sharply different views on certain topics which has led to the personal attacks that I see so many threads (often the best, most intelligent threads) devolve into. Maybe John A. and Schweizer Krieger wont be contributing to this thread anymore. Also, perhaps I shouldn't attempt to be an armchair-moderator anymore! What I'd like to see is John A. and Schweizer Krieger continue the debate in a new, more civil manner. Let's remind ourselves of the big picture from time to time--we're all (racially-conscious Whites) in this struggle together.

Absolutely correct. The original topic was how using mainstream boards could be used to awaken Whites. Although I agree with this, I disagree with the "we can win using this method."

Posting online should be in support of real-life activism, of whatever form. Yankee Jim was kind enough to share his exchange with a jew on this, and I tore him (the jew) a new one for it. (Although I don't think I used any "hate speech and vitriole" in so doing. )

Somewhere along the way, Schweizer Krieger challenged my perception of what an American is...which is intensely personal, and made for an interesting, yet heated, side-issue. (Believe me, I edited my comments well and thoroughly prior to posting them.)

However, it is not constructive to our Cause, and so--having already bid adieu to the jew--I will leave this thread and the side-topics it generated. Further discussion on these lines will serve no purpose, best wishes to all WN in hopes of awakening more Whites.